HAKIM ALI vs The STATE
This petition arises out of an order of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of death passed upon the petitioner under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while three co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses, which required corroboration, was sufficiently corroborated by the recovery of a blood-stained tehband and the decapitated head of the deceased at the instance of the petitioner, despite the precise statements leading to the discovery being inadmissible. The Supreme Court held that the recovery of the decapitated head at the petitioner's instance and the recovery of the blood-stained tehband constituted valid corroborative evidence to sustain the conviction. The key principle laid down is that the fact of a recovery made at the instance of an accused can serve as good corroborative evidence even if the accompanying verbal statements leading to the discovery are inadmissible in law.
- Whether the recovery of incriminating items at the instance of an accused can corroborate related eye-witness testimony when the accompanying statements are inadmissible?
- Can the conviction of a single accused be maintained upon proper corroboration while co-accused are acquitted based on a lack thereof?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition arises out of an order of the High Court maintaining the conviction and sentence of death passed upon the petitioner under ,section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Three other co-accused persons, however, were acquitted by the High Court.
2. The occurrence took place on the 6th of - December 1966, at digarwela on a village path passing by a sugarcane field and was witnessed by two persons, namely, P. W. 12, Mohammad Sadiq and P.
3. W. 13, Mohammad Hussain. Shah Mohammad deceased was chased by the accused persons, including the petitioner and after Shah Mohammad had fallen down as a result of dang blow given by the co-accused, the petitioner along with another co-accused, caught hold of the deceased and dragged him to the nearby field of the accused persons and there the petitioner, along with another co-accused, gave hatchet blows on the neck of the deceased as a result of which the head was severed from his body. The petitioner, Hakim Ali, then put the head in the loi (Exh. P. 1) of the deceased and took it away along with the other accused persons. Subsequently, the accused was produced before the Police and a blood-stained tehband was recovered from the person of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, took the Investigating Officer to a field and brought out the decapitated head of the deceased, wrapped up in the loi.
4. Mr. Brohi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that inasmuch as the High Court itself held that the witnesses of occurrence are related to the deceased, as a matter of caution they should not be believed unless their evidence received corroboration from an independent source. Acting on this principle the High Court not having found corroboration of the evidence of the witnesses implicating the other three accused persons, acquitted them, but in 'the case of the peti--tioner the High Court held that recovery of the decapitated head of the deceased at the instance of the petitioner as well as the recovery of blood-stained tehband from the possession of the petitioner which was found to be stained with human blood, corroborated the evidence of the eye-witnesses and therefore, their evidence could be safely relied upon for the purpose of maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. The High Court has, therefore, acted on sound principles and we do not find any fault with it.
5. It has been contended with reference to the case reported in AIR 1947 P C 67 that inasmuch as neither the investigating officer nor the Seizure List witnesses have stated as to what actually was stated by the petitioner which led to .The recovery of the severed head, it could not be used as a piece of corrobora--tive evidence. We are unable to accept this contention. It appears from the record that the petitioner did make some statements on the basis of which the head was recovered but these statements were not admissible in law. That the head was e recovered at the instance of the petitioner is itself a good piece of evidence of corroboration.
6. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- The State vs Noor Hassan alias Nooro 2022 LHC 5147
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus State 2009 PLD 709
- GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State 2011 SCMR 670
- ALI KHAN and another vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 11
- Muhammad Sharif vs The State K.L.R. 2009 Supreme Court 340